> With the recent federal block of click to cancel, states implementing this will be the way to go.
State's rights is just about always the best way to go. It's nice to see the power being returned to the people.
State's rights is just about always the best way to go. It's nice to see the power being returned to the people.
Click to cancel is popular among the people. It was blocked despite this. If the people had power (as opposed to lobbyists, or big business), this would had passed federally.
How could this already be passed in CA? Does CA not have gerrymandering, appointed judges, and lobbyists?
Generally agreed. I live in Canada and think we would be much better off if we pushed more legislation away from the feds and to the provinces. The needs/wants of Alberta/Saskatchewan is much different than Quebec for example.
Gun control is a major divisive issue in Canada as gun control is 100% at the federal level, but the preferences of how it is handles varies hugely between provinces, so much so that some provinces are threatening to not enforce the federal laws.
Im fine with the feds managing border enforcement, immigration, and military — and collecting taxes to fund those programs — but other than that they should leave to the provinces.
The other alternative is that everyone is subject to the mob rule of the major population centers which have much different needs/wants then those outside of the centers. Why not just give the population centers what they want and those in rural areas what they want?
Also consider that huge amounts of illegal guns cross the Canadian federal border, despite there being border control.
Same thing with bear spray, illegal to carry in most cases but anyone over the age of 18 can get it because it has real legitimate uses.
It works as well as having a peeing section in the pool
If you want to continue the pool analogy, many pools don’t let you bring in pool noodles and other floating objects into the lap swimming lane. That doesn’t mean you ban pool noodles, it means you kick people out who don’t follow the rules.
If someone possesses an object they are not allowed to have in a certain place they should be punished, the real problem is that Canada has a deteriorated rule of law where those who breaks the laws of the country are not stopped.
each province still has cities, so you arent getting away having cities dominate. instead, i think cities should be provinces to themselves, same as seattle and portland should both be states in the US. the rural albertans can take care of themselves without taxing calgary and edmonton.
I agree that the current trend in government is that feds are getting more power in Canada, but I dont think it is a good thing as now the entire country has to live under the rule of like 3 cities.
State and local laws should be addressing state and local issues. The pros and cons of a click-to-cancel law don't change from state to state.
The question: will companies segregate their customers? Everyone gets to click-to-cancel or is there now a dedicated code path just for the lucky few?
We are only here because so many businesses made it a burden to cancel, so I know how I would bet.
The answer to that is that companies will use geofencing to restrict click-to-cancel to only the states that pass such laws. We've already seen this happen on a national level, when Apple segregated the EU and the rest of the world on the topic of sideloading
You're missing an important reason why regulating at the state level first is a good idea: because it allows you to test the implementation with a small fraction of citizens before rolling it out.
Yes, basically everyone wants click-to-cancel, but actually writing good regulation is hard. Ideally, what would happen is that a few states would try things in different ways, and then when they figure out the best implementation, the federal government would pick up that implementation.
But still in many cases I think a less-than-perfect law is better than none.
But it's actually easier to get a law passed at the state level than at the federal level. As you can see, congress has a hard time passing meaningful laws right now, and from people I know who work there, it's largely because there's too much stuff for them to do - they simply don't have enough bandwidth. At the state level, you have fewer signatures you need to get on petitions, you represent a larger fraction of the constituents, your representatives are more sensitive to your demands, etc.
From a greedy/selfish perspective, having the states prototype laws before the federal government effectively offloads some of the regulatory burden onto the states.
And, when the law works, the other states tends to notice - you get political momentum.
It’s as if I wrote code to process data in a certain way, write it for an old mainframe and to process a specific set of data. There’s not a ton of generalizability to other data, and how you implement the code on other systems will impact the outcome. Especially because there are few objective measurements to evaluate the success of legislation
Well, the problem is that you can't test the generalized idea either. Even if a law is passed at the federal level, you're still only testing a specific implementation of a regulatory concept you want to implement.
Having a bunch of entities (the states) try implementing the same concept in different ways allows you to explore more of the solution space than if you only have a single entity (the federal government) do it uniformly upfront!
As an example, is there any reason to think we need to do experiments on whether children are fed at school for free?
Citation needed
> harmful
Citation needed
> little reason to think the bad experiments would adopt the winner
What does this mean? Not a coherent sentence.
> that we can even measure the best outcome
So, exactly the same as when it's done at the federal level.
> for a lot of stuff - we don’t need experiments, we know what works
In terms of legislation? Factually incorrect. Legislation/regulation is extremely difficult to get right and it's incredibly rare that there's precedent that is universally-agreed-upon to be beneficial in general, let alone when the states don't try their hand first.
> As an example, is there any reason to think we need to do experiments on whether children are fed at school for free?
Again, what does this mean? This isn't a coherent sentence either.
Was it your intent to shut down a conversation?
It's entirely an appropriate response given that you made multiple factual claims without providing evidence, and you made several statements that just were incoherent and so I couldn't even understand what your points were.
> I'm happy you feel like you made your point
Factually, I did make my point. I made factually correct statements, and you responded with false claims and fallacies, and eventually realized that you couldn't actually refute my points and so started emotionally attacking me. That indicates that you don't understand the difference between feelings and things that are factually true.
> Was it your intent to shut down a conversation?
No, it was my intent to discover truth. Do you not realize that facts and truth matters and that you can't just lie about things? If you can't justify your positions with facts and logic, you're just a hypocrite and your opinions are meaningless.
Also, Hacker News is specifically about intellectual curiosity. I want to know if what you're saying is true, and engage with points that you make (feelings are not points), and so I ask questions and challenge. Emotional outbursts, like yours, are the polar opposite - they're anti-intellectual, and shut down curiosity.
“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.” -― David Frum
In 2018, voters passed the Better Boundaries ballot initiative, requiring our legislature to adopt non-gerrymandered congressional maps. In 2020, the legislature passed a law that effectively ignored the results of the initiative, and they drew even more gerrymandered maps after the census.
We sued the state, and last summer our Supreme Court unanimously agreed that, per the state constitution, the legislature does not have the power to unilaterally gut laws passed by ballot initiative after the fact.
So the legislature haphazardly put together their own ballot initiative that would have amended our constitution to give them the authority to ignore the results of ballot initiatives. This was put on our ballots, but our Supreme Court came through unanimously again, saying that the text of the initiative was grossly misleading and that they did not meet the constitutional requirement to notify the electorate far enough in advance of election day. This initiative was on our ballots as they had already been printed, but the results were not counted per the Supreme Court's order.
My state government is still fighting tooth and nail to kill Better Boundaries before the 2026 election. None of these lawmakers give a single shit about the will of the people.
So now when the voters want something they no longer put a law on the ballot, they put a Missouri amendment on the ballot. Those can't just be overwritten by a legislature law, those must either be found unconstitutional or canceled out by another amendment.
It's a fun game the voters of Missouri and their representatives have created for themselves.